TOO late for anything this year but let me ask what I think is a Curious question:Does anyone else sense there being a little less justice to the same players getting first round byes in these tournaments of AMC/SPWC/SMC/EMC?

I am not sure what to do with the feeling I have about the matter. For surely there is part of me that says the 'just' thing is that players with a better ranking should get the bye. But then when I see they get a bye not just in one of the groupings but perhaps some will get it for all 4, the justice of that policy starts to swing to that is not a 'just' system after all.

And there is a part of me that wonders: getting a higher ranking involves a lot of variables, including games played and against whom the games are played. So does the higher ranking therefore deserve the 'automatic first round pass'?

Maybe the players who should get the first round pass should be the players from the previous year who finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. The seeding would not have to change, just the place of the first round passes. (Example whoever is ranked 6th, wins this year, then is ranked 8th next year. Slot 8 thus is the one with the bye.)

Or another possible solution might be for any player ranking high enough for byes in more than tournament to pick which one tournament they want the bye in. But that might be too tricky as these tournaments do not start at the same time.

Just a curiosity to consider for next year, and discussion now for a policy NEXT year.

On another front, I have to point out my wonderful luck of being in a first round that has the honor of playing either the #1 or #2 seed the next round in BOTH brackets. Anyone else? Haven't looked at it hard enough to see if others are in that situation.

Well, last year nobody got a free pass in AMC and SMC because we had a perfect 32 participants in SMC, and 33 in AMC.
Unless we have a perfect number of participants -(16, 32, 64, 128)-, there's no other choice than give a free pass to some players.

If we compare to tennis, one of the sports who is using KO system, it is always the highest seeds who get a free pass in the Masters 1000.
Always Nadal, always Djokovic, always Federer, always Murray.

Why ? Because they are the ones who constantly reach the QF, the SF and the final.
They earn the right to get a free pass.
Who is playing the qualifiers to enter the Grand Slam bracket ? The lowest seeds. Prove you have the potential to go far in the tournament, only reason for you to be given/to deserve a free pass.

With TELO, the seedings make way more sense than in the past. With League, NC, Fusion, SPWC, you have multiple chances to improve your TELO, and therefore your seeding.
You can improve your TELO against strong players, players of your level, and players below your level.
You can improve your TELO in tournaments using a seeding : League and SPWC, and in matches with 'random' pairings : Fusion and NC.

Match-TELO Seeding for SPWC and EMC gives everybody a chance to show your consistancy all through the year and be rewarded.
Asia and Swiss Game-TELO are pretty much a reflection of last year's results. Rui and Truck are seed number 1 thanks to their victory in 2013. No scandal there I think. (Me being seed number 1 and steamwistle number 2 in SPWC 2013 was really BS).

Byes have to be for the best players.
They are no goodie that is awarded to the best (What should the benefit for the top Player be? He doesn't get to play a match that he would surely have won).
The reason to give them to the best is to spare the players with the lowest ranking to have to play the best in the first round.

If we believe in TELO, the best is the one with the highest TELO.
Of course we could also say that the title holder is considered to be the best for this tournament regardless of TELO - then we would just have to put this Player on top of the seeding list.
But we should never declare the 8th seed to be the one with a bye in the first round. That would be completely against the way such brackets work.

Why do some people frequently get the #1 or #2 seed in the first rounds?
Brackets work like this:
1st round - best vs last, 2nd vs last but one, ...
So if you have a very low TELO you will always get the best opponent in the first round (unless this player has a bye, then you are lucky and get the 2nd, 3rd ...)
2nd round - same as above for the (expected) remainder. So with e.g. 16 Players in the 1st round #1 would play #16. In the 2nd round #1 (or the winner of 1 vs 16) will play #8 (or the winner of 8 vs 9).
If you are seeded somewhere in the middle, it's odds on that you get a top seed in round #2.

TOO late for anything this year but let me ask what I think is a Curious question: Does anyone else sense there being a little less justice to the same players getting first round byes in these tournaments of AMC/SPWC/SMC/EMC?

The premise here is that the TELO / seedings for the three maps relate to one another. This is not the case. They are completely independent.

TELO and seedings for AMC are based on one year of AMC, so almost by definition the top 4 players are the ones from last year's semi-finals.

TELO and seedings for SMC are based on 4 or 5 years of SMC championships.

We have currently an undisputable bracket, reflecting the current level of every player.
US TELO should be updated after the second deadline, and will integrate all the results of matches played by then.

We have currently an undisputable bracket, reflecting the current level of every player.
US TELO should be updated after the second deadline, and will integrate all the results of matches played by then.

yes but:

- same matches for all
- qualify the best
- minimum 2 or 3 games for everyone